2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[degenerasian]

4. Most anyone looks ok sandwiched between Guiliani and de Blasio.

But Guiliani and de Blasio are polar opposites?

[mister d]

You can suck with bad politics or with theoretically good politics. Both suck, different ways.

[Johnnie]

I like making a post in this thread literally a day prior to a New York Times article proving my suspicions right.

Fuck moderate Democrats. Pieces of shit. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie because they ARE DIET FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

Solid take.

It actually is. But ok.

[Nonlinear FC]

I like making a post in this thread literally a day prior to a New York Times article proving my suspicions right.

Fuck moderate Democrats. Pieces of shit. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie because they ARE DIET FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

Solid take.

It actually is. But ok.

Not really. But ok.



And I'll stop being a child and just say you're being a bit of an asshole in this thread. There are people here who consider themselves "moderate."

Not sure how you'd take being called a piece of shit.


Maybe take it down a notch.

[Brontoburglar]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

sure, and rhetoric around that point would be much more useful and far less whiny

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

[Joe K]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

sure, and rhetoric around that point would be much more useful and far less whiny

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

Even if that’s true, today’s well-reported NYTimes article about superdelegates looking to hand the nomination to someone who didn’t even run for President—and thus didn’t get a single vote from a primary or caucus-goer—kind of validates Bernie, doesn’t it?

[mister d]

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

My hot take is its much easier to blame Sanders, again, than to associate the growing backlash against the center as a response to the loss to Trump and everything since.

[mister d]

And probably a secondary turning point being AOC over Crowley and the establishment reaction.

[brian]

My hot take is it's way too early to be conspiracy-mongering about scenarios that are unlikely at best until way more than three states have voted.

It seems like Bernie supporters like to work themselves up in a lather over every perceived slight, no matter how ridiculous. Just have your boy win the required number of delegates before the convention like every other nominee in modern history and then he'll be the nominee.

[degenerasian]

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

My hot take is its much easier to blame Sanders, again, than to associate the growing backlash against the center as a response to the loss to Trump and everything since.

It all started with, how dare Bernie run against the anointed one, Hillary.

[mister d]

Just have your boy win the required number of delegates before the convention like every other nominee in modern history and then he'll be the nominee.

This "adhere to historical norms" also applies to leaning on non-viable candidates to drop out, right?

[brian]

Just have your boy win the required number of delegates before the convention like every other nominee in modern history and then he'll be the nominee.

This "adhere to historical norms" also applies to leaning on non-viable candidates to drop out, right?

Which again, talk to me if they're still in there with no path to the nomination after 20 or 25 or so states have voted and then we'll talk about conspiracies.

[Joe K]

My hot take is it's way too early to be conspiracy-mongering about scenarios that are unlikely at best until way more than three states have voted.

It seems like Bernie supporters like to work themselves up in a lather over every perceived slight, no matter how ridiculous. Just have your boy win the required number of delegates before the convention like every other nominee in modern history and then he'll be the nominee.

Neither Obama in 2008 nor Clinton in 2016 was able to obtain an outright majority without superdelegates.

[brian]

My hot take is it's way too early to be conspiracy-mongering about scenarios that are unlikely at best until way more than three states have voted.

It seems like Bernie supporters like to work themselves up in a lather over every perceived slight, no matter how ridiculous. Just have your boy win the required number of delegates before the convention like every other nominee in modern history and then he'll be the nominee.

Neither Obama in 2008 nor Clinton in 2016 was able to obtain an outright majority without superdelegates.

(In a completely different setup, which changed largely because of complaining by Bernie Bots.)

[brian]

If Bernie is in a similar position to Hillary in 2016 where he's got way more delegates than anyone else, but not quite enough to secure the nomination, he'll be the nominee. I can guarantee it.

Calm down. Relax. Do some phone banking or knocking on doors or something. Wait until after Super Tuesday at least before freaking out about any of a dozen potential scenarios.

[Nonlinear FC]

Just have your boy win the required number of delegates before the convention like every other nominee in modern history and then he'll be the nominee.

This "adhere to historical norms" also applies to leaning on non-viable candidates to drop out, right?

Yep. Folks need to GTFO after Super Tuesday if they are obviously not viable.

The heat is coming for some of these moderates if they don't make a dent in the coming week.

[mister d]

If Bernie is in a similar position to Hillary in 2016 where he's got way more delegates than anyone else, but not quite enough to secure the nomination, he'll be the nominee. I can guarantee it.

Care to quantify "way more"? Need to know how shit-in-a-box good this guarantee is.

[brian]

If Bernie is in a similar position to Hillary in 2016 where he's got way more delegates than anyone else, but not quite enough to secure the nomination, he'll be the nominee. I can guarantee it.

Care to quantify "way more"? Need to know how shit-in-a-box good this guarantee is.

More than 8 percent of the person behind him. So assume Bernie has 47 percent of the delegates needed, Biden (or whomever) has 39 percent or less and the rest are scattered amongst anyone else. If it's something like 47/43 or something like that, then all bets are off (as arguably they should be in that scenario).

ETA: To make it closer to the 2016 scenario.

[brian]

FWIW, I get the argument about superdelegates, but it's one of those things where I don't know how much self-awareness the average supporter or any candidate has to really acknowledge the unfairness of it.

If you assume a scenario in 2016 where Hillary was the clear choice of the vast majority of the people who actually voted in caucuses and primaries (roughly 54 to 46 percent) but if 90 percent of the superdelegates had pledged to Bernie he would have been the nominee in clear opposition to the will of the majority of Democratic voters. How fair would that have been?

If Bernie racks up the most delegates and the most votes this year and they try to pull any shenanigans like that against him, I promise you I'll be there in the trenches trying to impress upon whomever to reflect the will of the people.

But until that point, let's not worry so much.

[brian]

How could anyone not want to vote for this lady? "He doesn't wear pants!"

[Steve of phpBB]

Fuck moderate Democrats. Pieces of shit. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie because they ARE DIET FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

Yup. I particularly like my plan to ban gay marriage and abortion and deport all the DACA kids.

[Steve of phpBB]

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

My hot take is its much easier to blame Sanders, again, than to associate the growing backlash against the center as a response to the loss to Trump and everything since.

It all started with, how dare Bernie run against the anointed one, Hillary.

Or, you know, how dare Bernie run for the *Democratic Party nomination*, and do it by attacking Democrats so as to make them less likely to win.

[Joe K]

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

My hot take is its much easier to blame Sanders, again, than to associate the growing backlash against the center as a response to the loss to Trump and everything since.

It all started with, how dare Bernie run against the anointed one, Hillary.

Or, you know, how dare Bernie run for the *Democratic Party nomination*, and do it by attacking Democrats so as to make them less likely to win.

I assume you are equally upset with the non-Sanders candidates attacking him in the last debate with GOP talking points and thus making the current frontrunner less likely to win.

[Steve of phpBB]

I assume you are equally upset with the non-Sanders candidates attacking him in the last debate with GOP talking points and thus making the current frontrunner less likely to win.

Are you suggesting "GOP talking points" will make Sanders less likely to win? Because if so, we have a big problem. Since the GOP will be making their own talking points for months before the election.

I'm talking about false attacks that will make people on the left or center less likely to vote for him that are *different* from what the GOP will be saying.

[Joe K]

I assume you are equally upset with the non-Sanders candidates attacking him in the last debate with GOP talking points and thus making the current frontrunner less likely to win.

Are you suggesting "GOP talking points" will make Sanders less likely to win? Because if so, we have a big problem. Since the GOP will be making their own talking points for months before the election.

I'm talking about false attacks that will make people on the left or center less likely to vote for him that are *different* from what the GOP will be saying.

Earlier this week, Mike Bloomberg’s literally published (and then deleted) an entire sequence of completely fictitious Sanders quotes about dictators. Sounds like a false attack to me.

[Giff]

I like making a post in this thread literally a day prior to a New York Times article proving my suspicions right.

Fuck moderate Democrats. Pieces of shit. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie because they ARE DIET FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

Solid take.

It actually is. But ok.

Not really. But ok.



And I'll stop being a child and just say you're being a bit of an asshole in this thread. There are people here who consider themselves "moderate."

Not sure how you'd take being called a piece of shit.


Maybe take it down a notch.

I'm sure calling moderate Democrats pieces of shit is a great strategy to get them to vote for your candidate of choice! Sanders doesn't need those people who actually vote! He's going to win with that other old reliable voting force, the young people!

[Steve of phpBB]

I assume you are equally upset with the non-Sanders candidates attacking him in the last debate with GOP talking points and thus making the current frontrunner less likely to win.

Are you suggesting "GOP talking points" will make Sanders less likely to win? Because if so, we have a big problem. Since the GOP will be making their own talking points for months before the election.

I'm talking about false attacks that will make people on the left or center less likely to vote for him that are *different* from what the GOP will be saying.

Earlier this week, Mike Bloomberg’s literally published (and then deleted) an entire sequence of completely fictitious Sanders quotes about dictators. Sounds like a false attack to me.

You will never hear me defend Bloomberg or someone making false attacks against Sanders or any other candidate.

[Johnnie]

My 36 years on this planet and 18.5 years in the military give me my takes, not Bernie. He's just the first person to come through that has given me the final push I've need to come to the conclusions I have.

I get it. I'm a white guy. No matter who the president is, I'm gonna be ok. I have no student debt. No medical debt. I actually own a house and can pay the mortgage. And when I'm done with my job, I'll have a paycheck for life. I'm basically a statistical anomaly amongst Millennials.

Ultimately, I shouldn't be fired up at all. I should just kinda hang around, vote, and then vote blue no matter who in November. Then go about my business the next day.

But ya know what? When I look at all of the bullshit in America and who's in charge time after time after time, it's these old white puritanical fucks who want exactly no progress unless the money is right and the top percent get their cut. Everything is a for profit enterprise in America. Literally everything. Why do so many of my current generational cohort have to be so thoroughly fucked out of their future so that a small group of assholes profit?

Seriously, why? The richest country on the planet ($23 Trillion in GDP) with the ability to do anything would rather damage my future for money they can't spend after death than make life better for the rest of us now. And then these same people determine how I live and maintain a status quo that affects myself and millions of others like me. We don't have freedom here. We have the illusion of freedom. We have a small cabal of influencers who determine whether we live or die and how we live and die. It's gross.

So when I see a person come along who upsets those people, I get giddy. And I want to see them crumble. Consider it a residual effect of a micro managed, helicopter parent upbringing. Once I reached the right age I realized that nothing happens after the street lights come on. And there is no boogie man trying to kidnap and rape me. It was just my parents making me fearful of the world for no reason. So I learned from a very young age that bullshit walks. No wonder my mom wanted to be a politician so badly.

So, there's no reason we can't have free health care or free school or legal weed. Or for fucks sake, endless fucking war. NONE.

But the status quo maintains that we must! There is no better way! We know what's good for you so stop complaining! Fall in line! No.

So, sorry not sorry if I don't hold the Moderates Who Know More Than Me in high esteem and I call them assholes. I've been called names my entire life. And I've also had my intelligence questioned my entire life too. So, fucking whatever.

[mister d]

Or, you know, how dare Bernie run for the *Democratic Party nomination*, and do it by attacking Democrats so as to make them less likely to win.

Again, you're conflating "against the Dems" and "against the party leadership", which is a very different framing of his run. He's a very, very solid voter of Dem policies and the 3rd most reliable anti-Trump vote in the Senate.

[Johnnie]

Look, FWIW, I like all you guys a lot. And ultimately we all fall in the realm of "best for everyone."

My real, true anger resides in millionaires and billionaires who think they know what's right for me and lean on the same mindset of politicians from years and years ago that is just bullshit.

So the moderates I really hate are the ones holding power telling me how to live, if that makes any sense.

[Steve of phpBB]

Or, you know, how dare Bernie run for the *Democratic Party nomination*, and do it by attacking Democrats so as to make them less likely to win.

Again, you're conflating "against the Dems" and "against the party leadership", which is a very different framing of his run. He's a very, very solid voter of Dem policies and the 3rd most reliable anti-Trump vote in the Senate.

I don't know if that distinction can really be drawn so clearly. I think an attack on Democratic Party leadership includes Democratic Party politicians and the people who support or agree with them.

I think adopting a single payer healthcare system in this country at this time is a bad idea. Not because I want more poor people to die or am in the pocket of billionaires and corporations or am a "Republican lite", but because we already have a system in this country in which private insurance covers 150 million people and switching to an entirely new system would be a fucking disaster. As far as I know, no one has ever done it. There are other ways to get universal healthcare that make more sense given our current system.

I also think a nationwide, no-questions-asked $15 minimum wage is a bad idea. Not because I want more poor people to die or am in the pocket of billionaires and corporations or am a "Republican lite", but because I am aware of several small businesses that would struggle if they were forced to pay every employee $15 per hour.

So, an attack on the Democratic "establishment" based on the premise that they oppose single payer or $15 minimum wage because they want people to die or are in the pockets of billionaires and corporations or are Republicans lite is necessarily an attack on me and what I believe.

[Nonlinear FC]

Look, FWIW, I like all you guys a lot. And ultimately we all fall in the realm of "best for everyone."

My real, true anger resides in millionaires and billionaires who think they know what's right for me and lean on the same mindset of politicians from years and years ago that is just bullshit.

So the moderates I really hate are the ones holding power telling me how to live, if that makes any sense.

Cool with me. I get the hostility. Shit needs to change.

[Joe K]

Or, you know, how dare Bernie run for the *Democratic Party nomination*, and do it by attacking Democrats so as to make them less likely to win.

Again, you're conflating "against the Dems" and "against the party leadership", which is a very different framing of his run. He's a very, very solid voter of Dem policies and the 3rd most reliable anti-Trump vote in the Senate.

I don't know if that distinction can really be drawn so clearly. I think an attack on Democratic Party leadership includes Democratic Party politicians and the people who support or agree with them. ...

So, an attack on the Democratic "establishment" based on the premise that they oppose single payer or $15 minimum wage because they want people to die or are in the pockets of billionaires and corporations or are Republicans lite is necessarily an attack on me and what I believe.

If this is how you feel than you should also understand how Democratic politicians’ attacks on Sanders from the center could likewise be viewed by his supporters (young people, working class voters, Latinos, etc.) as an attack on them. And maybe then be more understanding of why these groups are not enthusiastic about centrist Dems rather than just reflexively blaming them every time the GOP wins the Presidency.

[mister d]

I don't know if that distinction can really be drawn so clearly. I think an attack on Democratic Party leadership includes Democratic Party politicians and the people who support or agree with them.

That all depends on who's framing it, right? Like I said, he votes with the party / politicians / people who support more than most.

I think adopting a single payer healthcare system in this country at this time is a bad idea. Not because I want more poor people to die or am in the pocket of billionaires and corporations or am a "Republican lite", but because we already have a system in this country in which private insurance covers 150 million people and switching to an entirely new system would be a fucking disaster. As far as I know, no one has ever done it. There are other ways to get universal healthcare that make more sense given our current system.

Do you think your opinion might change if you weren't one of the 150MM?

I also think a nationwide, no-questions-asked $15 minimum wage is a bad idea. Not because I want more poor people to die or am in the pocket of billionaires and corporations or am a "Republican lite", but because I am aware of several small businesses that would struggle if they were forced to pay every employee $15 per hour.

I agree here. Living wage isn't universal and $15 can be too high or too low depending on area.

So, an attack on the Democratic "establishment" based on the premise that they oppose single payer or $15 minimum wage because they want people to die or are in the pockets of billionaires and corporations or are Republicans lite is necessarily an attack on me and what I believe.

But so what? Dismissing people who want M4A as blind idealists or unable to grasp economic nuance is an attack on me and I'm fine with it. Diverging opinions on deadly serious subjects should be uncomfortable for us and worth upsetting or even losing an across the aisle buddy for politicians.

[Brontoburglar]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

sure, and rhetoric around that point would be much more useful and far less whiny

my hot take is that johnnie wouldn't be saying the stuff he's saying about "moderate democrats" (a very malleable term to begin with) being diet republicans if bernie hadn't made the establishment is against me a defining piece of rhetoric

Even if that’s true, today’s well-reported NYTimes article about superdelegates looking to hand the nomination to someone who didn’t even run for President—and thus didn’t get a single vote from a primary or caucus-goer—kind of validates Bernie, doesn’t it?

no

[Steve of phpBB]

I don't know if that distinction can really be drawn so clearly. I think an attack on Democratic Party leadership includes Democratic Party politicians and the people who support or agree with them.

That all depends on who's framing it, right? Like I said, he votes with the party / politicians / people who support more than most.

I think adopting a single payer healthcare system in this country at this time is a bad idea. Not because I want more poor people to die or am in the pocket of billionaires and corporations or am a "Republican lite", but because we already have a system in this country in which private insurance covers 150 million people and switching to an entirely new system would be a fucking disaster. As far as I know, no one has ever done it. There are other ways to get universal healthcare that make more sense given our current system.

Do you think your opinion might change if you weren't one of the 150MM?

I also think a nationwide, no-questions-asked $15 minimum wage is a bad idea. Not because I want more poor people to die or am in the pocket of billionaires and corporations or am a "Republican lite", but because I am aware of several small businesses that would struggle if they were forced to pay every employee $15 per hour.

I agree here. Living wage isn't universal and $15 can be too high or too low depending on area.

So, an attack on the Democratic "establishment" based on the premise that they oppose single payer or $15 minimum wage because they want people to die or are in the pockets of billionaires and corporations or are Republicans lite is necessarily an attack on me and what I believe.

But so what? Dismissing people who want M4A as blind idealists or unable to grasp economic nuance is an attack on me and I'm fine with it. Diverging opinions on deadly serious subjects should be uncomfortable for us and worth upsetting or even losing an across the aisle buddy for politicians.

I don't think Sanders' voting record really matters that much for the issue I'm concerned about, because that is not what he stresses on the campaign trail or in ads or bumper stickers. It's "Billionaires Can't Buy Bernie," not "Bernie Votes with the Dems 97% of the Time". In his campaigning, he stresses his opposition to and disagreements with the Democrats. You have to dig to find out that he is basically a Democrat for voting purposes.

Even if I didn't have insurance myself, I hope I would still be reasonable enough to (i) learn that there are other options for universal coverage besides single payer, and (ii) learn about the problems of transitioning to single payer that I mentioned. But perhaps not. I'm not sure that's relevant to my point, though.

Are moderate/centrist Dem politicians launching the kind of attacks on M4A supporters that Bernie and his supporters launch on Dems who prefer another option for universal coverage besides M4A? Although I'm not sure i see what that has to do with my point, which is that it is understandable for Democrats to take umbrage and Bernie's and his supporters' holier-than-thou attitude towards them.

[Joe K]

This is completely normal behavior:



As I said yesterday, Biden’s obvious cognitive decline is the massive elephant in the room that way too many people are avoiding either out of politeness or out of wishful thinking that he’ll be the great moderate hope.

[Johnnie]

And this is certainly not a big deal:

DNC Superdelegate promoting brokered convention Is a significant GOP donor, health care lobbyist.

[Johnnie]

This article is simple, but gets to the point.

Opinion: Why Pundits Can't Comprehend Bernie Sanders

From my perspective, the reason a party stalwart representing the last half-century of Democratic politics is losing to an independent, anti-establishment outsider is pretty straightforward. After all, millions of Americans are suffering from the consequences of a generation’s worth of bad decisions made by the political establishment, both Democratic and Republican. The communities torn apart by deportations, those jailed by the rise of mass incarceration, the families reeling from the toll of the war in Iraq, young people trying to live their lives under the yoke of crushing student debt, and everyone suffering from skyrocketing inequality after the financial crisis now simply understand that these crises required the willing complicity of leaders in both parties, including even prominent Democrats like Joe Biden.

[Pruitt]